[Vision2020] No victims??

[rvrcowboy]

Keely,

Thanks.  I too am not fond of "colon-speak".  I do, however, enjoy the
Biblical debate as long as it is kept civil and serves a purpose.

Dick S
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
To: <whayman at adelphia.net>; <joekc at adelphia.net>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No victims??


>
> I am not at all embarrassed to acknowledge my friendship with Warren
Hayman.
>   I'm just disappointed that he neglected to mention "while listening to
> gangsta rap" in his first paragraph below.
>
> That critical issue aside, I think I've been more than clear on my
position
> on all sorts of things in general and, specific to the Biblical view of
> homosexuality, made my points Tuesday night.  I do, however, condemn the
> idea that one particular form of sexual activity discussed at rather too
> much length here over the last couple of days defines the love between any
> two people.  Certain things may or may not be physically healthful, but
> relationships tend to be infinitely more complex than the mechanics
employed
> to express affection within them.
>
> In other words, I think it would be nice if we move away from discussions
of
> colonic penetrability and get back to the issue of who believes what from
> Scripture and how it plays out in interaction with the community.
>
> Pretty please?
>
> keely
> From: Warren Hayman <whayman at adelphia.net>
> To: Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net>
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No victims??
> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:48:58 -0700
>
> Actually Mr. Campbell, a refinement of your conclusion of dangerous
> creatures could prove the most terrifying scenario: imagine a sub-group
> of armed and violent gay males between 16 and 30 driving erratically
> while rabidly transfusing blood. . . Chilling.
>
> And to all, please accept my apology for my part in continuing this
> thread. Many times I am unsure of whether someone is posting or posing
> on V2020. I thought Mr. Simpson's statements within this realm; hence I
> responded flippantly yesterday, not realizing the gravitas of his
> concern. My goal was humor, and I failed as clearly as I no doubt just
> did above. I did not intend to continue the thread in whatever small
> way I may have.
>
> This is one reason I rarely post on V2020. I grant my relative
> incapacity for independent thought. At the same time, I often read
> postings written by people who seem to consider keyboarding a
> precognitive activity, who appear to negate the distinction between
> bellying and bullying up to the bar, or who perhaps lack the grace of
> pausing prior to clicking the send button, etc.
>
> This thread began, I think, from a beginning discussion of CC's
> position of not homosexuality per se, but rather how to treat gays and
> lesbians within a community. Specifically, the rather Socratic and
> Draconian mandate of death or banishment addressed during KRFP's
> discussion the other night. I would enjoy more of a reply from Mr.
> Wilson et al. For that matter, I would enjoy a continuation of the
> discussion. I don't know Mr. Wilson, but have consistently heard that
> he is quite adept at thinking on his feet. I did not find that evident
> the other night. I only barely know Ms. Mix and would not embarrass her
> by calling her a friend, but found her as deeply caring as she was
> intelligent and articulate. I would love to hear more, and that the
> discussion be kept in better focus on the topic-- for example, the
> caller questioning Christianity in general could have started and
> stayed on track with the intent.
>
> Messrs. Campbell and Simpson, I was trying to crack a funny. Sorry, and
> I'm done posting. I will, as WC Williams once wrote, "bow and pass
> smiling."
>
> Warren Hayman
>
> On Friday, July 14, 2006, at 07:22 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>
>  > Tony,
>  >
>  > What is the point that you're trying to make with these statistics?
>  > Are they intended to prove that "homosexual" behavior is harmful? If
>  > so, how exactly do the statistics support that point?
>  >
>  > Suppose, for instance, that the remaining 21% of AIDS cases were the
>  > result of blood transfusions. Would that mean that blood transfusions
>  > were dangerous, or more dangerous than heterosexual sex? It would be
>  > absurd to draw either conclusion.
>  >
>  > Clearly one can perform blood transfusions in a responsible way, with
>  > little risk of the transmission of HIV. We can distinguish between
>  > responsible blood transfusions and irresponsible ones, right? Thus, we
>  > shouldn't make general claims about blood transfusions based on this
>  > data. So why is it different in the case of "homosexual" behavior?
>  >
>  > On a related note, most violent crime is committed by men between the
>  > ages of 16 and 30. Likewise with traffic accidents and other social
>  > ills. If we put all men in prison, many of our social problems would
>  > go away. This is the kind of policy that would result if we took your
>  > bogus arguments to heart! There is no more dangerous creature on earth
>  > than the human male!
>  >
>  > --
>  > Joe Campbell
>
> =====================================================
>   List services made available by First Step Internet,
>   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                 http://www.fsr.net
>            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ====================================================
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> =====================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ====================================================
>